James Kirkup is The Telegraph's Executive Editor (Politics). He was previously the Telegraph's Political Editor and has worked at Westminster since 2001.

Childcare is the new rock ‘n’ roll, as far as politicians are concerned. Nick Clegg spent a lot of last year trying to get the issue on the agenda, with limited success. Now his Conservative colleagues have decided he’s onto something, and the Coalition is going to Do Something to make it (a bit) cheaper for (some) parents to get someone to look after their kids while they’re at work.

Given the crippling costs of childcare and the propensity of young parents to switch their votes around, it’s perhaps surprising that it’s taken politicians so long to spot an opportunity here. There are surely lots of votes to be won for the party that a) comes up with credible plans to make life easier for the large number of voters with small children and b) looks like it actually understands the everyday lives of those people. We should see the Coalition’s stab at this next week.

Still, government is complicated, and ensuring that that the Whitehall machine’s various outputs all serve a single purpose is agonisingly hard. A prime example is the Welfare Benefits Uprating Bill, which gets its second reading in the Commons tonight.

The Bill would fix annual increases in many benefits at 1 per cent, well below the expected rate of inflation: a real terms cut, in other words.

The legislation came from George Osborne’s cunning plan to put Labour on the defensive over welfare claimants: by legislating, the Coalition would force Labour to vote against benefits cuts, a symbolic public act that would cement the Opposition’s image problem over the welfare issue. Mr Osborne, you’ll remember, presented the plan as a move to cut the benefits of people who lie at home “asleep, living a life on benefits”.

That brilliant plan is looking a bit less brilliant today. Labour have made a decent fist of their argument that the benefits cuts would actually hit millions of people who are in work. The Lib Dems were first to show their unease about Mr Osborne’s framing of the issue, and some Tories privately share their discomfort: note how Iain Duncan Smith has pointedly refused to repeat or endorse the Chancellor’s language. Today, following public criticism of the "strivers vs skivers" trope from some Tory MPs, there is talk of a change in tone from Tory high command.

26. The 1 per cent uprating of Statutory Maternity Pay, Paternity Pay, Adoption Pay and Maternity Allowance could cause a smaller cash increase (by around £4 a week) in income from statutory payments for individuals receiving this support, than if they had been up-rated by CPI. For some individuals, their employer may cover the additional cost. We estimate that on average around 340,000 women each year receive MA and SMP.

For reference, statutory maternity pay is available for 39 weeks per child. So the bill would cost 340,000 women £156 each, unless their employers volunteer to fill the gap.

To some people, £4 a week isn't much money. To others, it is. But whatever the view of its value, what about the symbolism? Later this month, the Coalition will unveil measures it says will make it cheaper for women with children to go to work. Today, it’s proposing a law that will make it more expensive for working mothers to take time off work to care for newborns. What message does that send?